get_job_output

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: two distinct return shapes, step filtering only in list mode, and that grep is applied before line capping — an ordering nuance that affects results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then the dual-mode breakdown. No filler and nothing redundant given the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does cover return shape at a high level (spool file list vs. DD content). It could say more about pagination/truncation signals when maxLines caps output, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all six parameters already carry descriptions including the grep-before-cap ordering and the stepName-only-when-ddName-omitted rule. The description restates these semantics rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (spool output for a job) and clearly enumerates the two operating modes: listing spool files vs. returning one DD's content. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_job_jcl or read_dataset without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The mode selection is clear: omit ddName to list spool files, supply ddName to read one DD, with stepName only applying in listing mode. It doesn't name alternative tools (e.g., compare against get_job_jcl) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls just short of 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.